Which uprated Suspension to go for?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Gigdy,Nov 6 2008, 12:07 PM
I thought it was very bad practice to have mis matched shocks. So putting them in the rear would be a very good start.
Does anyone have any experience of these koni shocks on the rear and how they transform the handling?
Were the early ones known for having a soft rear end?
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,863
Likes: 125
From: Pawtucket, RI
The rear suspension in the early AP1's isn't too SOFT, it's too STIFF (relatively).
Too much rear roll stiffness relative to the front => oversteery. Initially anyway. They designed the rears to toe-in with bump, so mid-corner the balance is neutral (toe-in on the outside rear, toe-out on the inside rear). The uninitiated experience the initial oversteer and lift off the throttle, which is bad enough on most cars anyway, but with the AP1 lifting will cause the outside rear to toe OUT some = even worse. Spin city. This is the big reason why so many people wreck these cars.
On the '02/'03 AP1's, they softened the rear and stiffened the front some, and with the AP2 they got rid of most of the toe change with bump.
Anyway, I track my stock '01, and the biggest deal to me is excessive rear tire wear. The rear-biased roll stiffness distribution heavily loads the outside rear, and the geometry causes it to be toed in. More load + more toe-in => accelerated wear. Basically, the rears are overworked and the fronts are underutilized.
Too much rear roll stiffness relative to the front => oversteery. Initially anyway. They designed the rears to toe-in with bump, so mid-corner the balance is neutral (toe-in on the outside rear, toe-out on the inside rear). The uninitiated experience the initial oversteer and lift off the throttle, which is bad enough on most cars anyway, but with the AP1 lifting will cause the outside rear to toe OUT some = even worse. Spin city. This is the big reason why so many people wreck these cars.
On the '02/'03 AP1's, they softened the rear and stiffened the front some, and with the AP2 they got rid of most of the toe change with bump.
Anyway, I track my stock '01, and the biggest deal to me is excessive rear tire wear. The rear-biased roll stiffness distribution heavily loads the outside rear, and the geometry causes it to be toed in. More load + more toe-in => accelerated wear. Basically, the rears are overworked and the fronts are underutilized.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ZDan,Nov 7 2008, 04:23 AM
The rear suspension in the early AP1's isn't too SOFT, it's too STIFF (relatively).
Too much rear roll stiffness relative to the front => oversteery. Initially anyway. They designed the rears to toe-in with bump, so mid-corner the balance is neutral (toe-in on the outside rear, toe-out on the inside rear). The uninitiated experience the initial oversteer and lift off the throttle, which is bad enough on most cars anyway, but with the AP1 lifting will cause the outside rear to toe OUT some = even worse. Spin city. This is the big reason why so many people wreck these cars.
On the '02/'03 AP1's, they softened the rear and stiffened the front some, and with the AP2 they got rid of most of the toe change with bump.
Anyway, I track my stock '01, and the biggest deal to me is excessive rear tire wear. The rear-biased roll stiffness distribution heavily loads the outside rear, and the geometry causes it to be toed in. More load + more toe-in => accelerated wear. Basically, the rears are overworked and the fronts are underutilized.
Too much rear roll stiffness relative to the front => oversteery. Initially anyway. They designed the rears to toe-in with bump, so mid-corner the balance is neutral (toe-in on the outside rear, toe-out on the inside rear). The uninitiated experience the initial oversteer and lift off the throttle, which is bad enough on most cars anyway, but with the AP1 lifting will cause the outside rear to toe OUT some = even worse. Spin city. This is the big reason why so many people wreck these cars.
On the '02/'03 AP1's, they softened the rear and stiffened the front some, and with the AP2 they got rid of most of the toe change with bump.
Anyway, I track my stock '01, and the biggest deal to me is excessive rear tire wear. The rear-biased roll stiffness distribution heavily loads the outside rear, and the geometry causes it to be toed in. More load + more toe-in => accelerated wear. Basically, the rears are overworked and the fronts are underutilized.
I can see how the rear lateral rigidity can enhance oversteer but my thoughts are that some better dampers on the rear would improve the current handling situation?
I fully appreciate the consequence of lifting mid-corner in one of these, I try to drive it like a mid engine car and I've got fine so far....
What was the change in suspension from the AP1's to the AP2's? Harder dampers, harder springs, smallers arb's?
Shy Guy - I want to avoid coilevers on the car, my 200SX is shook to bits with them and they were 'soft' ones...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vin_c
S2000 Brakes and Suspension
13
May 8, 2014 11:37 AM